A 20-year-old Idaho murder case is currently stirring up concerns about police use of private genetic databases and the limitations of controversial familial DNA searches. The controversy is coming to light after a man named Michael Usry was accused of murder after police linked him to DNA found at the crime scene. The catch was that the officers got their lead from the world’s largest and most popular for-profit genealogical website.

According to the New Orleans Advocate, gory New Orleans filmmaker Michael Usry became implicated in the gruesome rape and murder of an Idaho woman named Angie Dodge after a genome database owned by Ancestry.com released private DNA information to the Idaho Falls Police Department. The information indicated that Usry’s DNA could be a match to semen found on Dodge’s corpse.

On June 13, 1996, 18-year-old Dodge was found stabbed in her Idaho Falls apartment. The violent nature of the crime and desecration of Dodge’s body led the Idaho Falls Police Department to believe that it was a crime of passion and that she knew her attacker. An investigation and confession led police to charge a man named Christopher Tapp for the murder, but his conviction has has been widely criticized and there have been claims that he was wrongly convicted.

That’s where Usry comes in. Decades later police were still concerned that they were never able to match Tapp’s DNA to the semen found on Dodge’s stomach. Last year investigators turned to the controversial technique of familial DNA testing, which involves identifying potential suspects by analyzing the DNA’s Y chromosome and trying to find a family member of the perpetrator. According to the Advocate,

A promising “partial match” emerged between the semen sample and the genetic profile of Usry’s father, Michael Usry Sr. — a finding that excluded the father but strongly suggested one of his relatives had a hand in the young woman’s murder.

The Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Foundation, a nonprofit purchased by Ancestry.com, had the elder Usry’s DNA samples from years ago when he submitted them through a project sponsored by the Mormon Church. What’s concerning is that according to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the DNA samples collected by the nonprofit were only meant to be accessed and analyzed by the “principal investigator and the others specifically authorized by the Principal Investigator, including the SMGF research staff.” Despite this, the company shared the samples with the police without a warrant or court order.

This DNA sample obtained by the police reportedly partially matched  Usry Sr., but it also partially matched with 41 other samples in the database. However, police followed the lead from Usry Sr.’s DNA. Despite police being sure they’d finally found Dodge’s real killer, when they eventually compared Usry Jr.’s DNA to the sample from the crime scene, they discovered that he was not a match.

The reason why this man’s case is so important is because police use of private DNA databases without authorization from the courts threatens all Americans’ privacy and civil liberties. The people who submitted their DNA to this company did so under the guise that their information would be protected, but this controversy is proof that that was simply not the case.

This case also adds further scrutiny to the controversial method of familial testing. Fans of familial testing see it as a way to crack unsolvable cases, but the potential discrepancies and large pools of related DNA hardly make it a perfect science. Just a few weeks ago the FBI found itself in similar deep water after it was uncovered that its experts gave flawed forensic testimony in many trials in recent decades. That revelation scrutinized the accuracy of microscopic hair analysis, also said to be an imperfect science.

These cases make it clear that the forensic world could use more advancements to generate greater certainty when it comes to DNA analysis. It also makes you wonder how many innocent people weren’t as lucky as Usry and are behind bars because of less than perfect DNA matches.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Idaho Murder Case Raises Concerns Over Crime-Solving Technique appeared first on Law Street.

She was convicted, then acquitted, and then re-convicted. Today, after more than seven years of legal limbo in the Italian justice system, Amanda Knox is expected to hear a verdict from Italy’s highest court to determine if her murder conviction will be upheld. If found guilty for a third time, Knox may find herself in an extradition battle between the U.S. and Italy.

Judgment day: Court to decide Amanda Knox’s future http://t.co/uS1fyoEhHH via http://t.co/nyDdMYjJKC pic.twitter.com/D4oULavgWT

— TODAY (@TODAYshow) March 27, 2015

If you are not familiar with the Knox case, or just a little hazy on all of the details, here’s a quick refresher:

In 2009 Knox and her former boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito were convicted of murdering 21-year-old British student Meredith Kercher, who in 2007 was found stabbed to death in the Perugia, Italy villa that she shared with Knox. Knox was sentenced to 26 years, and Sollecito to 25 years. Then in 2011, after having already served four years behind Italian bars, both Knox and Sollecito were found not guilty on appeal and released. Knox returned to Seattle. That acquittal was short lived because in 2014, the Italian Supreme Court overturned the appeal, convicting Knox yet again. This time, Knox was sentenced to 28.5 years in prison, Sollecito received 25 years. Now the Italian Supreme Court will decide if they will uphold Knox and Sollecito’s murder convictions, enter a new appeals round, or issue a ruling that amounts to an acquittal.

Knox, who never returned to Italy after being released, awaits a verdict from Seattle, while Sollecito, who has had his passport seized, has attended court proceedings in Italy.

So what does this all mean for Amanda Knox?

If found guilty, again, the Italian government may attempt to extradite the 27-year-old to Italy in order to serve out the remainder of her sentence. Normally that would be the case because of a 1983 extradition treaty between Washington and Rome, which allows individuals charged or convicted of certain crimes in one country to be detained and sent back to the other. However, it’s doubtful this will ever happen for Knox. In accordance with that treaty, the United States will not extradite a person who has previously been acquitted, which Knox was at one point. The U.S. Constitution also protects Knox from double jeopardy, which forbids an individual from being retried for the same charges they’ve been legitimately acquitted or convicted of.

According to CNN, the statute of limitations is double the sentence, meaning the Italians have 57 years to bring her back to the country. In order for Knox to be sent back to Italy, the American Secretary of State must first sign off. But due to the high profile nature of the case, including Amanda’s large number of supporters, and accusations of Italian police mishandling, this outcome is highly unlikely.

If Knox is found guilty and refuses to go back to Italy she will have an international arrest warrant lingering over her head, essentially making international travel for her an impossibility. Sollecito, on the other hand, has way more to lose, given that he is already in Italy and can be taken into custody immediately following the verdict.

Both Knox and Sollecito have never wavered in insisting their innocence in Kirchner’s murder. A judgment is expected to be handed out sometime Friday. We’ll continue to watch with the rest of the world to see what Amanda’s fate may be, but as of now it’s very uncertain.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Amanda Knox’s Legal Limbo Almost Over appeared first on Law Street.